ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026
Assessing the Chemical Intelligence of Large Language Models.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can You Help ChatGPT Get an "A" in Organic Chemistry? Teaching Effective Prompting of Large Language Models for Reaction Prediction.Journal of chemical education · 2026Article
- General-Purpose Models for the Chemical Sciences: LLMs and Beyond.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- A benchmark for assessing large language models on molecular-to-food and food-to-molecular prediction tasks.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large Language Models are versatile, general-purpose tools with a wide range of applications. Recently, the advent of "reasoning models" has led to substantial improvements in their abilities in advanced problem-solving domains such as mathematics and software engineering. In this work, we assessed the ability of reasoning models to perform chemistry tasks directly, without any assistance from external tools. We created a novel benchmark, called ChemIQ, consisting of 816 questions assessing core concepts in organic chemistry, focused on molecular comprehension and chemical reasoning. Unlike previous benchmarks, which primarily use multiple choice formats, our approach requires models to construct short-answer responses, more closely reflecting real-world applications. The reasoning models, OpenAI's o3-mini, Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro, and DeepSeek R1, answered 50%-57% of questions correctly in their highest reasoning modes, with higher reasoning levels significantly increasing performance on all tasks. These models substantially outperformed the nonreasoning models which achieved only 3%-7% accuracy. We found that Large Language Models can now convert SMILES strings to IUPAC names, a task earlier models were unable to perform. Additionally, we show that the latest reasoning models can elucidate structures from 1D and 2D
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.